Laserfiche WebLink
i . <br /> PUBLICHEALTH SERVICES <br /> SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY P' <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION w; ` <br /> Karen Furst, M.D., M.P.H., Health Officer • n... p <br /> 304 East Weber Avenue, Third Floor • Stockton, CA 95202 <br /> 2091468-3420 <br /> ALLAN CORRADI <br /> DOLE FRESH FRUIT <br /> P O BOX 277 <br /> VICTOR CA 95253 <br /> RE: Victor Fruit Operations SITE CODE: 1616 <br /> 8751 E. Hwy 12 <br /> Victor, CA <br /> San Joaquin County Public Health Services, Environmental Health Division (PHS/EHD) <br /> has reviewed the "Support for Site Closure" dated October 15, 1999, prepared by Chaney, <br /> Walton & McCall for the above referenced'site and provides the following comments. <br /> The tank integrity tests performed on the underground storage tank(UST) at this site <br /> prior to its removal indicated that the UST system was "tight". However, it has been <br /> documented that many UST's reported as "tight" by tank integrity tests did in fact leak. <br /> The analytical results for the soil sample collected beneath the UST at the time of <br /> removal indicated low levels of contamination and the PHS/EHD inspector present at the <br /> time noted odor and sandy soil. Enclosed are copies'of the inspector's report. The <br /> PHS/EHD report was discussed with that inspector on August 9, 1999. At that time it <br /> was determined that further site investigation was warranted for two reasons. <br /> + In sandy soil, petroleum contamination tends not to adhere to the.soil particles <br /> allowing the contaminants to migrate through the soil, possibly impacting the i <br /> groundwater. <br /> • An analysis for Methyl tert Butyl Ether(MtBE) has not been performed on soil and/or <br /> groundwater samples from this site. This analysis was not required when this UST <br /> was removed. However, current law requires analysis for MtBE prior to the issuance <br /> of a "no further action required" letter. <br /> The PHS/EHD worksheets referred to in your consultant's chronology are two-sided <br /> forms that are started when the PHS/EHD staff person reviews the UST removal plans, in <br /> this case November 8, 1991. On the reverse side of-the "site closure evaluation" portion <br /> of the sheet is a"health and safety plan" for the UST removal process. For this site, a <br /> copy of the original sheet of the "site closure evaluation"was made for the stockpiled <br /> soil. Copies of the sheets are enclosed. Please note that the staff recommendation and t <br /> supervisor review portions of the "site closure evaluation" were not completed. <br /> 4� <br /> A Division of San Joaquin County Health Care Services <br />